Which Cultural Safety Strategies Are Making a Difference? Exploring Hospital Initiatives for First Nations Peoples in Australia. A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To explore the barriers, facilitators, and outcomes of strategies that have been implemented to improve the experience of cultural safety for First Nations inpatients in the Australian hospital setting. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: Guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology and reported using PRISMA-ScR, six databases were searched with data extracted and synthesised. DATA SOURCES: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Emcare, Informit, Medline, ProQuest and Scopus databases. Searches were undertaken in March 2024. RESULTS: Forty-three articles representing 39 studies were included. Strategies were categorised as governance, service delivery, hospital environment, clinician education, and First Nations workforce. First Nations researchers were co-authors in most studies, and emergent themes were grounded in First Nations priorities, with an emphasis on developing the First Nations health workforce. Findings included (i) First Nations health staff being identified as cultural brokers between First Nations patients and non-First Nations clinicians; (ii) experiences of cultural safety being amplified when First Nations and non-First Nations health staff worked together; and (iii) strong governance being critical to addressing institutional racism and enabling cultural safety. CONCLUSIONS: Embedding the voice of First Nations peoples in governance and an organisational commitment to strengthening the First Nations workforce are essential drivers for implementing cultural safety strategies in Australian hospitals. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Working together respectfully and collaboratively offers a pathway forward for First Nations and non-First Nations health service clinicians and management to deliver culturally safe hospital care. IMPACT: Culturally safe hospital care is integral to promoting the health of First Nations people. This study maps cultural safety strategies used in the Australian inpatient hospital setting, explores if and how these strategies have improved cultural safety and identifies barriers and facilitators to implementation. Fostering approaches to support understanding and respect between First Nations and non-First Nations clinicians and staff is integral to promoting culturally safe hospital care. Hospital leadership, policymakers and staff can benefit from understanding the drivers of culturally safe hospital care. REPORTING METHOD: Reported using PRISMA-ScR. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Guidance on this research was received from Aboriginal leaders at the first author's hospital workplace. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: A research protocol was prepared in advance and registered: https://osf.io/sfzby/?view_only=03c2349ebdae4a7ba95a621d9b7e8bc4.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".